Watch_Dogs by Ubisoft

[Deleted member 11852]

Games can scale across multiple threads but as far as I'm aware the scaling isn't balanced across all cores and so the game could still be bottle necked by the primary thread. But of course that's not the only performance limitation of DX11.

So they're either taking a CPU brute-force approach with pushing DirectX or they're doing something gameplay-related with the CPUs. I we'll need to wait until this time next week, by which it should be a bit clearer how the game differs across platforms.

I.e. we know that 360 and PS3 games lack density (less pedestrians, cars etc) compared to One and PS4 but is that the extent of the changes? Do XB1/PS4 simply have better physics and AI than 360/PS3, and similarly does PC potentially (CPU dependant) have better physics/AI than One and PS4.

 

[DavidGraham]

It's never stated that reflections are updated for every single object in the scene. In the other article it only says this about reflections: "The lights reflect off wet surfaces". That's true.

there are dozens of shadow casting lights throughout the map, they're just not rendered at the same time

It's hard to see because the player wears a dark coat, but when using lighter clothing it's much more noticeable:

Why is that crap? PBR is mostly related to surface shading (energy conservation and things like that) and content-authoring pipelines (proper albedo and specular values).

They've delivered on what they've been demoing this past year. If you expected more, that's on you.

Oh come on, you are just going to let them get away with it with sorry ass excuses like that? the game has been massively downgraded and you are willing to justify it with underhanded phrasing and playful choice of words?

Water reflections are sub-par, no dynamic shadows almost anywhere, lighting is bad, flat, post processing is lacking, polygon count is in the toilet and textures are bland, materials look like crap. So please, we are not a bunch of fools here, most of us have trained their eyes for 3D graphics for decades, this game DOES NOT have GI, PBR, dynamic shadows or reflections, it has cheap graphics on every category possible. the fact that the PS3 and PS4 version are only different in crowd size is almost telling.

Just because your inferred something, doesn't mean they implied it. They were very clear (in the interview you linked) about the graphical techniques that they considered important for the game and these are present.

Except they didn't keep any promises, graphics look like crap, non of the features they advertized is present.

I'd say it's much more likely to be API overhead. Why would optimisations to the things you mentioned not transfer back to the PC CPU's with higher clock speeds, bigger caches, faster memory etc... when they are all using the same instruction sets?

It is not about optimizations, the situation will be the same as GTA 4 on PC, Watch_Dogs on Ultra will increase draw distance, level of details, car and pedestrian density, all of these require a decent quad core CPU, just like GTA4 required that several years ago. Couple that with maybe more precision and effects from the physics engine and you have got yourself a beefy CPU requirement. The developers are also possibly considering 1080/60fps performance.

 

[pjbliverpool]

It is not about optimizations, the situation will be the same as GTA 4 on PC, Watch_Dogs on Ultra will increase draw distance, level of details, car and pedestrian density, all of these require a decent quad core CPU, just like GTA4 required that several years ago.

Very true, but they're also saying a 3.2Ghz quad SandyBridge will bottleneck you to medium-high settings so it's still a CPU hog. Unless of course they're holding the PC version to higher frame rate requirements than the consoles which may also be a factor.

The benchmarks should be really interesting anyway.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Except they didn't keep any promises, graphics look like crap, non of the features they advertized is present.

Which graphical features did they advertise? No more crazy ranting and unsubstantiated claims, put up or shut up.

 

[L. Scofield]

Oh come on, you are just going to let them get away with it with sorry ass excuses like that? the game has been massively downgraded and you are willing to justify it with underhanded phrasing and playful choice of words?

Water reflections are sub-par, no dynamic shadows almost anywhere, lighting is bad, flat, post processing is lacking, polygon count is in the toilet and textures are bland, materials look like crap. So please, we are not a bunch of fools here, most of us have trained their eyes for 3D graphics for decades, this game DOES NOT have GI, PBR, dynamic shadows or reflections, it has cheap graphics on every category possible. the fact that the PS3 and PS4 version are only different in crowd size is almost telling.

I refute your complaints with evidence, and this is how you respond:

Denial isn't conductive to constructive debate.

 

[DavidGraham]

Very true, but they're also saying a 3.2Ghz quad SandyBridge will bottleneck you to medium-high settings so it's still a CPU hog. Unless of course they're holding the PC version to higher frame rate requirements than the consoles which may also be a factor.

Yeah, I edited my last post before I saw yours, I added more physics precision and effects (wind, waves, particles ..etc) and possibly 1080/60fps too.

Other factors could be more shadows and cloth simulation. Also exaggeration is possible (they lied on the graphics what stops them from lying on hardware requirements too?), latest Wolfenstein benches show an i5 delivering a rock solid 1080/60 performance with a 780Ti, i3 didn't fare bad either and almost delivered the same performance. So deception in this particular area is not uncommon.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Also exaggeration is possible (they lied on the graphics what stops them from lying on hardware requirements too?)

Obviously, it's common sense to inflate the hardware requirements of your game so that people who might of bought it, give it a miss. Business 101.

 

[DavidGraham]

I refute your complaints with evidence, and this is how you respond:
Denial isn't conductive to constructive debate.

Evidence?!! lol you call playing with words evidence? you only provided a single picture in a sea of paraphrasing.

Which graphical features did they advertise? No more crazy ranting and unsubstantiated claims, put up or shut up.

Don't look too far:

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Don't look too far:

What graphics effects am I supposed to be looking this? This is technical forum, not GAF. Posting a bunch of pictures as your technical argument doesn't cut it.

 

[djskribbles]

Not to mention the screencaps aren't comparable at all since they're completely different (location, time of day, position etc.). And are they taken from different compressed videos? Probably not the final version either.

 

[Cyan]

http://i.imgur.com/yYG2SHv.jpg

Terrible image quality. No doubt my eyes will bleed as I'm having crazy fun hacking the crap out of Chicago

Looks cool to me.

More images from the beta, this time from the Xbox One version. The webpage also has a link to a video showing how the wind works realistically with clothes. And there are more pics there.

http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/05...pictures-show-great-weather-effects-and-more/

[face_happy] Not bad.

 

[swaaye]

Regarding graphics, the only thing that was missing from Oblivion is the dynamic shadows, the rest remained intact.

Yeah that's true about the shadows. Skyrim doesn't even have shadows like they demoed. But those Oblivion videos go way beyond graphics....The AI stuff in particular. Oblivion has some neat AI going on, but that demo is something else.

Watch Dogs hype isn't going to extremes like that even though it probably has a pretty sophisticated world / inhabitant sim. Though I suppose I'm also not reading any previews of Watch Dogs whereas I ate up every bit of pre-release info about Oblivion.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Looks cool to me.

Sorry, it was sarcasm I also believe the game looks pretty good. Not mind-blowing, not the best I've ever seen, but pretty good. The graphics that I've seen convey the intended atmosphere nicely in my opinion.

 

[L. Scofield]

Evidence?!! lol you call playing with words evidence? you only provided a single picture in a sea of paraphrasing.

There was no paraphrasing, just logic and evidence.

Looks cool to me.

Poe's law strikes again

 

[Cyan]

Sorry, it was sarcasm I also believe the game looks pretty good. Not mind-blowing, not the best I've ever seen, but pretty good. The graphics that I've seen convey the intended atmosphere nicely in my opinion.

There was a moment I swear I somewhat thought you were "hiding your face under one of your wings" like an eagle, when you wrote that.

There was no paraphrasing, just logic and evidence.



Poe's law strikes again

What's the Poe's law? Just curious...

I heard about the Godwin's law, which stipulates that to the extent that a conversation stretches on when discussing on the internet, the probability of someone mentioning Hitler in the conversation tends to one.

 

[HTupolev]

What's the Poe's law?

It's tough to tell the difference between a parody of extremism and sincere extremism.

 

[DavidGraham]

There was no paraphrasing, just logic and evidence.

No, both of you provided nothing but execuses for the bad reflections, lack of dynamic shadows and bad lighting, the only point where you claim you have evidence is one shot where you claim there is indirect lighting, which is on contrary to any footage we have seen of the game, whether day or night. I suppose there are excuses for the downgraded explosions, smoke and fog as well?

What graphics effects am I supposed to be looking this? This is technical forum, not GAF. Posting a bunch of pictures as your technical argument doesn't cut it.

Pictures provide the data for the technical discussion, not excuses or marketing lessons.

 

[L. Scofield]

No, both of you provided nothing but execuses for the bad reflections, lack of dynamic shadows and bad lighting, the only point where you claim you have evidence is one shot where you claim there is indirect lighting, which is on contrary to any footage we have seen of the game, whether day or night. I suppose there are excuses for the downgraded explosions, smoke and fog as well?

Your complaints were based on the assumption that the developers promised some things. I provided evidence that either they delivered (as in the case of GI) or you misinterpreted their statements (as is the case regarding reflections).

Unless you're going to provide well-thought counter arguments or evidence against my refutations, this particular line of discussion is over.

What's the Poe's law? Just curious...

I heard about the Godwin's law, which stipulates that to the extent that a conversation stretches on when discussing on the internet, the probability of someone mentioning Hitler in the conversation tends to one.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Poeslaw

EDIT: Hard to tell with the compression but I really like the volumetric fog here. It actually looks bloomy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30aev9Zjo3A

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Pictures provide the data for the technical discussion, not excuses or marketing lessons.

No, pictures from games are the culmination of technical, engineering and artistic decisions. I'm convinced, given your posting history where you've claimed to be able to discern PBR by visual analysis and where you've repeatedly claimed certain technologies were present in certain games and been corrected many times, that you really don't know what you're talking about. So for my own sanity, I'll stick you on ignore. Clearly a technical discussion of the technologies present in the game is beyond you.

 

[Rangers]

From what I can tell the PS3/last gen version looks really bad. Is it just me?

PS3 footage

Maybe the current gen versions will seem better by comparison.